Should I buy a 2nd plane- " fast family hauler"
- Thread starter Cardiff Kook
- Start date
Cardiff Kook
PATRON
Sisters, OR
Interestingly my rough insurance quote for a 206 was higher than it was for a 185. Not sure how that is possible. Same year and hull.
cub yellow
FRIEND
North Central Wa.
Cardiff Kook
PATRON
Sisters, OR
Pretty sure 185 is also classified as a six seater
skywagon8a
MEMBER
SE Mass MA6
The 5th and 6th seats in a 185 & 180 are an optional bench in the baggage compartment intended for "little" people.
wireweinie
FOUNDER
Palmer, AK
No. Certain serial numbers had an option for two extra seats 'way back'. But if you look at your weight and balance calculations, those pax would be limited to a couple 3rd graders.
Web
Data point. My 180 has 3190# gross. With me at 230 and wife at 125 up front, I can carry two 150# passengers in the second row and two 100# passengers in the third row and be in the CG envelope. It’s unlikely you’d fit more than 200# into the rear row.
Even with only one child, I found my 2800# gross insufficient. My plane was a factory seaplane so doing the 3190# gross increase was simple and worthwhile. I view the third row seat much like I view a third seat in a Cub. There’s no easy path of egress in an emergency. I wouldn’t put anyone in that position. Especially not a child who’d need help. 206s are no bargain for passenger egress, either. Even for the front right seat.
Even with only one child, I found my 2800# gross insufficient. My plane was a factory seaplane so doing the 3190# gross increase was simple and worthwhile. I view the third row seat much like I view a third seat in a Cub. There’s no easy path of egress in an emergency. I wouldn’t put anyone in that position. Especially not a child who’d need help. 206s are no bargain for passenger egress, either. Even for the front right seat.
Last edited:
Ken Robbins
Registered User
Petaluma, CA & Kasilof, AK
Lot's of good advice here, I have had a PA-12 and (one at a time) a 206, a Cherokee 6, a few Bonanzas, even a Beaver, and near free use of a 182. Had 2 for perceived maintenance shop needs that I justified to myself because hey, I am in aviation. Never really panned out to be a great idea business wise.
The 182 was free use but I maintained and hangared it and ended up to be the most all around practical even dismissing the free part. The 206 was normally aspirated with Sportsman cuff and the big aft door. Really liked that one but at the time the value went high enough I would have been stupid to keep it. Cherokee 6 (300) was a buss but worked just as well as the 206 for my needs and the family always seemed to need the space when it was available.
All-in-all, be really, really careful on getting something well supported. Consider the fuel burn on the heavy haulers and really consider the rental notion for at least a little while. Try them on like shoes and buy the best one for the hike you really are taking. My decisions were mostly opportunity and impulse (Beaver) driven. Luckily I did fine on owning and selling all of them but that doesn't mean free or profitable.
As an A&P I see folks getting into aircraft that have excellent qualities in theory but eat them alive in costs due to lack of support. Waiting for a skin or gear component that is sketchy in approval, high priced and months out can defeat the whole experience. Folding gear is a money wallet that tends to empty each time the gear doors open and in my opinion is not justified with flight legs less than a few hours in length. My Bonanzas were a mixed bag, 6-700 mile trips to bid insurance work was a sweet spot but running parts locally was a real loser.
Just one more opinion on the pile. But I do work on primarily Cirrus so take it for what it is worth.
Ken
The 182 was free use but I maintained and hangared it and ended up to be the most all around practical even dismissing the free part. The 206 was normally aspirated with Sportsman cuff and the big aft door. Really liked that one but at the time the value went high enough I would have been stupid to keep it. Cherokee 6 (300) was a buss but worked just as well as the 206 for my needs and the family always seemed to need the space when it was available.
All-in-all, be really, really careful on getting something well supported. Consider the fuel burn on the heavy haulers and really consider the rental notion for at least a little while. Try them on like shoes and buy the best one for the hike you really are taking. My decisions were mostly opportunity and impulse (Beaver) driven. Luckily I did fine on owning and selling all of them but that doesn't mean free or profitable.
As an A&P I see folks getting into aircraft that have excellent qualities in theory but eat them alive in costs due to lack of support. Waiting for a skin or gear component that is sketchy in approval, high priced and months out can defeat the whole experience. Folding gear is a money wallet that tends to empty each time the gear doors open and in my opinion is not justified with flight legs less than a few hours in length. My Bonanzas were a mixed bag, 6-700 mile trips to bid insurance work was a sweet spot but running parts locally was a real loser.
Just one more opinion on the pile. But I do work on primarily Cirrus so take it for what it is worth.
Ken
jimboflying
MEMBER
A person can have as many planes as they want. The drawbacks are costs of ownership, storage, and maintenance. Your flying time will be divided between them.
As to the question of flying with small children cross country. My daughter owns and flies a Cessna 170. She also has a 15 month old child. She says she can fly the child successfully on about 50% of her attempts with about 1/2 hour trips. The ear muffs stay on only while the child is asleep. When she wakes up it’s game over. Some days they only get taxi practice done. Your experience may be different.
I have raised 3 children and two of them are pilots. The concept of family trips in the plane sounds inviting but my experience was they didn’t happen very often. Non pilot passengers don’t like any turbulence. If they ever get air sick it is game over for future trips. Getting great weather predictably on both ends of the trip doesn’t happen very often where I live. If you have time to spare then go by air certainly applies to small plane GA cross country flying.
If YOU want to fly another type of plane be sure to get some flying experiences in the make and model before you put it on your wish list. Facts and figures give you some idea about a plane but flying or at least riding in it gives more information.
As to the question of flying with small children cross country. My daughter owns and flies a Cessna 170. She also has a 15 month old child. She says she can fly the child successfully on about 50% of her attempts with about 1/2 hour trips. The ear muffs stay on only while the child is asleep. When she wakes up it’s game over. Some days they only get taxi practice done. Your experience may be different.
I have raised 3 children and two of them are pilots. The concept of family trips in the plane sounds inviting but my experience was they didn’t happen very often. Non pilot passengers don’t like any turbulence. If they ever get air sick it is game over for future trips. Getting great weather predictably on both ends of the trip doesn’t happen very often where I live. If you have time to spare then go by air certainly applies to small plane GA cross country flying.
If YOU want to fly another type of plane be sure to get some flying experiences in the make and model before you put it on your wish list. Facts and figures give you some idea about a plane but flying or at least riding in it gives more information.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
Depends on the model. My only 206 time is in a P206. Just like a 182 for right seat egress. Also just like the 182 when both have a top hinged jump door conversion.
Rob
MEMBER
AZ06
Do yourself a favor and quit keeping yourself on a short leash over winds. What you need, specially if you want to load your family in a tail dragger is the exact opposite. Take a month off and fly your cub to Alaska, or Bermuda for the matter, but don't stop every time you feel a gust or bumps are going to keep you down. Don't be silly about it and press into a gale, but there's no better medicine for directional control and confidence than total immersion.
If your skill set is on par, there is minimal to no difference in where the steering wheel is, if your skill sets are lacking, then they are lacking... wherever the steering wheel is.
Lastly, the heavier tailwheel may have more of a tendency to stay straight if your skills are such that you are keeping it straight. On the other hand, let one get over centered, and there is just that much more mass to make coming back impossible.
Sounds to me like you just need to fly more, and the good thing is it sounds to me like you just want to fly more as well.
A late big engined 180 would make a spectacular family station wagon.
Take care, Rob
I would agree with Rob. Don't let winds keep you down, It would not hurt to get a good instructor and make him/her earn the money on a real windy day to help show you a few pointers. Another thing that will help tune up you sills is stop landing on dirt if a tar/cement runway is available. So every landing and takeoff at home field should be on the main runway. Dirt and grass is very forgiving. You have enough hours now that a bitch slap from the runway every now and then is a good thing. Your not running Bushwheels so tires are not an issue. When I had my Pacer at about your number of hours I made myself land only on hard runway when possible. It really helped clean up some lazy habits. If you do go up in big winds do have a bailout if things just are not working for you that day.
DENNY
DENNY
Rob
MEMBER
AZ06
This one, has spent his whole life commuting in a 180...
Although he thoroughly enjoys cub flying as well. My folks, my kids, and now their kids have all travelled extensively in our airplanes. Hard to imagine what the ride would have been like other wise?
Take care, Rob
Attachments
Great post, Rob. My family is more comfortable in my Cessna than in any family car. It’s how we get to where we want to be. Good weather, bad weather, no problem. If it’s bad enough? Don’t go.
My advice? Skywagons are great in the wind. Experience is the best teacher. You start with a personal wind limit and come home to winds that exceed it. You land successfully so you raise your limit. That’s how it goes. Your limits will vary with currency. If you fly a lot 35 mph isn’t a big deal. If you haven’t flown lately you’ll be more conservative. Use common sense. At any rate, from my narrow-minded perspective? A Skywagon is FAR better in the wind than a Cub, so don’t set your goals based on your Cub experience.
My advice? Skywagons are great in the wind. Experience is the best teacher. You start with a personal wind limit and come home to winds that exceed it. You land successfully so you raise your limit. That’s how it goes. Your limits will vary with currency. If you fly a lot 35 mph isn’t a big deal. If you haven’t flown lately you’ll be more conservative. Use common sense. At any rate, from my narrow-minded perspective? A Skywagon is FAR better in the wind than a Cub, so don’t set your goals based on your Cub experience.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Geeze, 35 KTS no big deal? sorry, that is not very good advice. Most commercial outfits I know don't even consider flying in that because the risk level, and once down you still need to taxi. I don't leave home base with a loaded 206 at 30 KTS, doesn't mean I can't handle it, but the risk is not worth the reward.
Owning two planes increases the cost, especially if you are paying a shop to maintain both of them. Having one for fun, and one for travel is a great plan, but it is important to stay current in planes you fly, especially if. you want your family to be comfortable.
I find it comical that we are talking about 'go fast' planes and everyone is saying skywagons... sorry, they are not really fast. Great planes, but your mission is to travel, with family in comfort, (think about wife comfort), you need her input here. You will fly more in a plane she likes! A Cherokee 180 will carry the same load or more, as fast as a Cessna 180 on less gas and for a whole lot less dollars!
As finances do seem to be a consideration, is a flying club, rental or partnership an option? Until kids get to school, it is easy to find a 4 seat plane you can all fit in. BUT, as they get older and bigger, useful load becomes a factor. At some point everyone gets 15 pounds and we need to fuel every 2.5 hours... but the normal phenomenon that is often overlooked is that family trips become less and less often- sports, birthday parties, school concerts all take up weekends when you want to go, so you end up staying home more and more.
This is not to say they don't happen, but it might only be once every few months that you can get everyone to go. If you can make a family trip with all of you four times a year- renting are real go-fast plane for those trips makes sense.
Pete has some great points about retractable gear. Unless you are keeping current and get yourself good flight reviews every year in that retractable plane, it might not be the safest choice. I would also look for a nose wheel plane, and probably a low wing because the ride would be nicer, and passengers more often like to not feel hiding under the wing.
Cherokees are fast and inexpensive by comparison. You would want to be careful about the wing AD.
There are some other quick plants, the Cirrus for example, that will make traveling enjoyable and flight duration short enough to keep family happy. My bride does not do well after 1.5 hour legs. Just a factor to think about.
Another idea for you might be to visit the local flight school and discuss leaseback options. The plane stays flying enough to justify ownership, and you get some monetary help with ownership.This would also give you better access to transition and recurrence training in your plane.
One other thought about two planes, Own the plane that does 80-90 percent of your needs. Rental of the other 10-20% is const effective.
Lastly, if you want your wife to join you, take her with you to look at types of planes, and take her in the different planes. When she smiles and says yes, you have won the battle.
Best of luck.
Owning two planes increases the cost, especially if you are paying a shop to maintain both of them. Having one for fun, and one for travel is a great plan, but it is important to stay current in planes you fly, especially if. you want your family to be comfortable.
I find it comical that we are talking about 'go fast' planes and everyone is saying skywagons... sorry, they are not really fast. Great planes, but your mission is to travel, with family in comfort, (think about wife comfort), you need her input here. You will fly more in a plane she likes! A Cherokee 180 will carry the same load or more, as fast as a Cessna 180 on less gas and for a whole lot less dollars!
As finances do seem to be a consideration, is a flying club, rental or partnership an option? Until kids get to school, it is easy to find a 4 seat plane you can all fit in. BUT, as they get older and bigger, useful load becomes a factor. At some point everyone gets 15 pounds and we need to fuel every 2.5 hours... but the normal phenomenon that is often overlooked is that family trips become less and less often- sports, birthday parties, school concerts all take up weekends when you want to go, so you end up staying home more and more.
This is not to say they don't happen, but it might only be once every few months that you can get everyone to go. If you can make a family trip with all of you four times a year- renting are real go-fast plane for those trips makes sense.
Pete has some great points about retractable gear. Unless you are keeping current and get yourself good flight reviews every year in that retractable plane, it might not be the safest choice. I would also look for a nose wheel plane, and probably a low wing because the ride would be nicer, and passengers more often like to not feel hiding under the wing.
Cherokees are fast and inexpensive by comparison. You would want to be careful about the wing AD.
There are some other quick plants, the Cirrus for example, that will make traveling enjoyable and flight duration short enough to keep family happy. My bride does not do well after 1.5 hour legs. Just a factor to think about.
Another idea for you might be to visit the local flight school and discuss leaseback options. The plane stays flying enough to justify ownership, and you get some monetary help with ownership.This would also give you better access to transition and recurrence training in your plane.
One other thought about two planes, Own the plane that does 80-90 percent of your needs. Rental of the other 10-20% is const effective.
Lastly, if you want your wife to join you, take her with you to look at types of planes, and take her in the different planes. When she smiles and says yes, you have won the battle.
Best of luck.
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
I have always assumed the 180 and the 182 had similar performance and useful load but it seems I was way wrong on that. I have a PA-28-180 (last year of the straight wings) and a friend has a C-182J. We sometimes go to the same places on overnight camping trips. His 182 takes a far bigger load and cruises much faster than my PA-28-180. I burn less gas.
PA-28-180 is "fast" compared to a Super Cub or even an FX-3 but I would never have considered it a fast airplane. For fast(er) in a Piper I'd be thinking Turbo Arrow or Cherokee 6.
Cardiff Kook
PATRON
Sisters, OR
I guess I should define “fast.” Most of my time is cub time- so I cruise at 90mph. 140-160 is very “fast” to me[emoji846]- but not in the scheme of things.
I guess I want a balance of speed and short field capability (not to throw a wrench in this many month discussion)- but if you look at OP I wasnt originally talkikg about airplane choice in the first place- just if I should own 2 airplanes of any flavor.
Who knows. So many choices. This bearhawk 5 looks pretty cool though if i can find 2000 hrs to build a plane. Ha.
Thanks for all the insight.
I guess I want a balance of speed and short field capability (not to throw a wrench in this many month discussion)- but if you look at OP I wasnt originally talkikg about airplane choice in the first place- just if I should own 2 airplanes of any flavor.
Who knows. So many choices. This bearhawk 5 looks pretty cool though if i can find 2000 hrs to build a plane. Ha.
Thanks for all the insight.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
What prop are you running? The Cherokee 180 I was around had an 1,100 useful load and cruised around 140, it stayed right with my C-180 with 870 useful load.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
I have a Maule, partly because I could not afford a 180 or cub. So much less expensive to maintain it, and has a door large enough to put 55 gallon drums. Helps when carrying Caterpillar parts! My wife likes the Maule!
The Bearhawk is an exceptional plane.
Check out different planes with your bride, it will pay dividends in your flying!
Rob
MEMBER
AZ06
Good forward thinking. The more we get exposed to traveling, the easier it is to lose sight of 'fast'. The produce market is hot right now, I imagine the farmers still trudging along in King Airs will bump it up to light jet partnerships, and the ones already there will up the ante to bigger or faster.
I once picked my daughter up for a family weekend. She lives in Flagstaff, AZ and we live close to Yuma. It's a 5hr +/- drive, a tank of gas and an all day affair in a cub, or an hour and change each way in the 180. I made great time on the way up (tailwind). Picking her up, I took off over the trees for Yuma, and 15 - 20 minutes later I was over the small mining town that once was, Jerome. Damn the wind or some such I mumbled .... to which my daughter jumped up and began scolding, DAD! we just left Flagstaff a few minutes ago and we are now zipping along over Jerome, It would have literally taken me all day to get here if we wanted to visit by truck. Sorry Pepe
A lot of years ago, I used to fly my cub from AZ to AK to play. typically 32 hrs. over parts of 5 days to get there. Same route in the 180 lops DAYS not HOURS off the trip, or adds time to enjoy the stops along the way.
The world is a much smaller place at 140 MPH, and if you ever get the opportunity to find an unfortunate sudden stop at that speed, I think you will agree that you were going fast.
Wind? Groundloops? Handling? these comments are getting the cart ahead of the horse. I didn't see where anyone advised flying in 35 mph wind. The statement was;
I happen to agree with the mindset, which said another way means, with little experience, you will not be able to handle much wind. Keep the argument generating semantics in check please.
Flying is a wonderful responsibility, that deserves a responsible approach. This gentleman is asking for help in his research (and this is bare bones groundwork) to potentially move forward in a direction many here have traveled. Like wise many here have owned turbo props, and even a few with jets. Assuming he has the wherewithal to afford one of those, would it be fair to say he can't own or fly one of those because he is currently a lowly supercub owner? I'm not a very optimistic soul, and I don't give people the benefit of the doubt as often as I should, but I would like to believe that if this gentleman wants to put his own flesh and blood in an airplane, he'll probably do the right thing and get the appropriate training. Sure, there will be those that don't, that person also isn't going to seek advise or put much stock in the advise given.
Furthermore, with respect to the 180 itself, that thing (in the air) is for all intents and purposes the same airplane as the 182 that so many believe is far safer. That's it... zip, zilch, over and done. So we're assuming this gentleman can't land an airplane? or worse yet can't learn that skill? Pretty tough crowd here. Of the half dozen airplanes I am blessed to be the current caretaker of, and the many more I am blessed to have the privilege of flying, I'd have to say the 180 is probably one of the absolute most tolerant and easy to get along with. She's docile, yet powerful. She's slow on the bottom end, she's reasonably FAST on the top, she's nimble enough to be sporty, but stable enough to drink a cup of coffee in, in all but the worst weather. So much so, that I've never even considered adding an AP to mine, because outside of hard IFR (where you shouldn't be in one) this thing is a rock.
A couple decades ago a member here had a cub. That's it... when I met him in, he had a cub. And he was looking for a back seater to help him get to one of the gatherings in TX, Reklaw maybe?
Then he had two. Later that morphed into 2 cubs and 2 180's. His work started benefiting from airplane ownership and a 206 was added. He jumped in with some cash on the R&D of the Kodiak, which he eventually recieved, but IIRC he beat that one to the punch with a Caravan, which at some point morphed in to a King Air. We both have incredibly busy lives, so don't keep in touch, but I'd sure love to know what he's flying these days. And sure glad when he was diving in he didn't receive the same 'warm welcome'.
Nah man, don't let the negative nellies piss on your wheaties. Find the airplane that fits your mission best. And by the way, part of that mission should include aesthetics and what 'lights your soul on fire', or no one could own a Howard, a Stearman, or a P51..... And then.... DO your due diligence and learn to fly it right.
I hope your next thread is ' My 180 is out grown, should I buy a Kodiak 900? "
Take care, Rob
Oh and although it was not part of the OP, both the Maule and BH5 are by definition 'shorter coupled' airplanes than a 180. How did we get to a place of throwing reason to the wind?
Last edited:
frequent_flyer
Registered User
Arizona, USA
My PA-28-180 manual lists the gross at 2,450 and "standard" empty weight at 1,404. The earliest W/B seems to indicate my airplane came out of the factory at 1,492 lb. I have never weighed it but the most recent W/B shows an empty weight of 1510 for a useful load of 940 lb. A Cherokee with 1,100 useful load is surprising to me. Maybe the earlier Cherokee 180 with the smaller tail was a lot lighter.
With the density altitudes typical for AZ I have no interest in loading to anywhere near max gross. The friend with the 182 is happy to load anything he can get through the door. (That doesn't bother me as I used to fly a 182 jump plane.)
Prop is 76EM8S5-0-60 which is standard for the 1975 PA-28-180.
To be fair I never cruise it WOT. Usually run 2,400 rpm even on a long flight.
I hope the Maule guys like their planes as much as I like my 180. It’s a choice, not a competition. Load the plane and go have some adventures. Family is the best reason to do it. If you’re lucky you’ll get a part 2 with the grandkids. Life is good. Stop thinking, start doing.
aktango58
FRIEND
18AA
Very well said!!
Seems like every flight I would like a different plane for that mission. Heck, going to Seattle I would like a Lear, until time to pay the fuel bills.
Not many 'bad' planes out there, just hard to meet every mission with limited budgets!:lol::lol:
A P-51 would sure be nice when I head the 450 miles to work, save commute time!
mvivion
SPONSOR
Bozeman,MT
hotrod180
FRIEND
Port Townsend, WA
Even if your wallet can accommodate the purchase of a second airplane,
and your hangar can accommodate housing it,
there are the on-going issues of ownership.
1) a second insurance policy to buy
2) a second annual inspection, along with ongoing maintenance
3) flying both airplanes enough to stay proficient.
I toyed with the idea of owning two airplanes for a long time,
I finally bought a hangar big enough to house two.
Still haven't bought a second airplane, mainly due to reason # 3 above.
My C180 is overkill for most of the flying I do,
but it does everything pretty well & I enjoy flying it.
Unless you're doing some fairly hard core, off-airport stuff,
I would suggest just buying a 180 or 185 & selling your cub.
It'll do most of what your cub can do, but do it faster with more people & gear on board.
My two cents worth...
WWhunter
FRIEND
Near the Headwaters of the Mighty Mississippi Rive
I have owned 3 planes at one time, but there combined value still wouldn't afford me to buy a Cessna 180. Heck, for what I originally paid for the 3 combined could barely buy a nice 170 these days. The 3 were a 172A, Murphy Rebel and a Rans s-7. I only owned the 3 for a short time as the purchase of the Rebel was due to my son taking ownership of the 172 when he returned from his overseas deployment. We flew it to Oregon last summer to it's new home.
The Rans and Rebel serve very similar missions although the Rebel is much more stable, faster and the one I prefer to fly in any kind of windy/turbulent weather. One of the two will be sold eventually, as has been said in a previous post....it's hard to stay current in both. Especially when one is kept in town at the airport and the other is here at my property. You can guess which one gets flown the most.
Back on topic, even having 2 experimental types at the same time is very time consuming. It seems there is maintenance or upgrades needed on one or the other at all times, not including condition inspections. I have been lucky all these years, even with keeping the 172 in flying condition, as I have always had IA's allow me to do most of the work under their supervision. Granted, I can do most everything myself since they are experimental, which saves me a lot of aviation units. But, this money savings comes at a huge cost in my free time. Insurance and hangar rental end up not penciling out for the amount of hours I get on the one in town. Unless you have a lot of disposable income, renting that heavy hauler might be the best route.
The Rans and Rebel serve very similar missions although the Rebel is much more stable, faster and the one I prefer to fly in any kind of windy/turbulent weather. One of the two will be sold eventually, as has been said in a previous post....it's hard to stay current in both. Especially when one is kept in town at the airport and the other is here at my property. You can guess which one gets flown the most.
Back on topic, even having 2 experimental types at the same time is very time consuming. It seems there is maintenance or upgrades needed on one or the other at all times, not including condition inspections. I have been lucky all these years, even with keeping the 172 in flying condition, as I have always had IA's allow me to do most of the work under their supervision. Granted, I can do most everything myself since they are experimental, which saves me a lot of aviation units. But, this money savings comes at a huge cost in my free time. Insurance and hangar rental end up not penciling out for the amount of hours I get on the one in town. Unless you have a lot of disposable income, renting that heavy hauler might be the best route.
Last edited:
Two personal airplanes are fine, if you can afford to run them. I have a C170B, and a Bonanza, which are a good pair. One good Cessna 180 is 95% as good as having those two. The problems come with more than two. Even if you can afford it, there is not enough time in your life to really handle them. I have a couple other oddball airplanes and a glider, and they never get enough attention to warrant the trouble.
